31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

A Model of Language Development Based on Self-Organisation

of Gestalts and Metaphor

David Rail, MD; FRACP

Neurologist

Campbelltown, Sydney, Australia 2560.

drail@tpg.com.au

Abstract

Modeling language development has recently seen a shift towards studies of the
interdependence of language and perceptual reality. Cognitive linguistics has revived the
Gestalt approach where things and relations constitute wholes: relations emerge with the
objects through a process of segmentation and transformation. According to this view the
continuous and dynamic form of the external, phenomenal world motivates sentential
semantic structures as an expression of the unity between perception and language. These
structures also represent the progressive self-organisation of image schemata where
meaning emerges through metaphor. Metaphor involves double scope blending where
structures emerge from the interaction between incongruent conceptual frames. That
process is recursive leading to creative structures. Although language development is
based on gestalt metaphor self-organisation no model has concentrated on this
fundamental approach. To produce such a model we conceive metaphor in its rhetorical
structural form, as coordination of the master tropes, or a tropology. We rationalize the
role of the tropology and show how it functions recursively throughout the forebrain. To

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 1/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

understand the recursive form of the tropology we show how it functions in a gestalt
manner and that perception is a tropological process. The latter stems from perception
and the tropology becoming self similar (isomorphic) as the language system self organises
in ontogeny. To corroborate the isomorphism we show that the Gestalt principles and the
master tropes are homologous. This finding enables us to determine the structure of
perception. We indicate how semantic sentential structures are generated from self-
organisation of the tropology. With self-organisation tropological function incorporates
spatiotemporal scaling (fractal time). We indicate other important aspects of the model, in
particular metalinguistic development.

Keywords: Brain function; cognitive linguistics; concept formation; double scope

blending; emergence; fractal time; gestalts; gestalt principles; image schemata; irony;
language development; master tropes; metaphor; metastability; microgenesis;
morphogenesis; perception; self organisation; semiotics; topology.

Introduction

Modeling language development has recently seen a shift towards studies of the
interdependence of language and perceptual reality. Cognitive linguistics proposes that
language is a cognitive phenomenon where conceptual structures stem from perception and
embodiment (Hampe, 2005; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Taylor, 1989; Skoldberg, 2002).
Language is imaginatively embodied where metaphor is central to the origins of meaning
(Danesi, 2004). Modeling the development of language has focused on meaning rather
than syntax. This leads to the important question: how are events in the physical world
transformed into semantic notions? This question confronts the aporia or discrepancy
between the analog world we live in and the discrete or digital nature of language in terms
of categories and symbols. To overcome this difficulty Thom proposed that we need to
preserve ‘a priori forms of space and time’ by generating dynamic structures or
morphologies (Thom, 1972, 1990).

These structures are dynamic, morphological and gestalt based. In this approach early
morphodynamic models from René Thom have received wide support, both from
cognitive linguists such as Talmy (2000) and Langacker (1987; 1990), and from
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 2/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

psychology through the study of metaphor by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Lakoff
(1993). Morphodynamic theories have proposed that there are syntactico-semantic
infrastructures of a topological and dynamic nature, which form universals (see Manjali,
1997 (a) and (b)). These underlie a morphological emergent level of reality where "surface
structures" (gestalts) emerge from physical "deep structures".

Petitot calls the extraction of semantic structures or invariants in spatiotemporal

transformations the morphogenesis of meaning (Petitot, 1995 and 2003). Based on this
work cognitive linguistics has revived the Gestalt approach calling into question the
traditional roles assigned to perception as a faculty only dealing with relations between
objects. In the Gestalt or mereological conception things and relations constitute
wholes: relations are not given for granted but emerge together with the objects through a
process of segmentation and transformation (Doursat & Petitot, 2005 (a) and (b)).

Two major examples of the morphogenesis of meaning are found in our development of
spatial (prepositions) and spatio–temporal meaning (verbs). Understanding
prepositions, e.g. ‘in’, ‘above’, ‘across’ amounts to the brain forming morphodynamic
transforms, where transforms create a morphology that evolves temporally (Doursat &
Petitot, 2005 (a) and (b)). Transformation routines perform a drastic, yet targeted
simplification of the geometric data relating the relevant items in perception. By erasing
details they create virtual structures or singularities that govern the development of
geometric relationships between the interacting morphologies. For example, what
characterises the semantic development of the concept of ‘in’ is invariance across all the
perceived instances. The relationships that emerge with the transformations represent
structural invariance across an infinite range of real world instances or topologies. What
remains invariant is the Gestalt, the preservation of similar structural relationships that
have developed dynamically.

For verbs (Thom, 1972 and 1990) geometrico-topological analysis associates

combinatorial invariants with spatio-temporal process in the physical world. This
primordial schematism governs the linguistic organisation of our Gestaltic vision of the
world, where these invariants form the basis for verbal process. Actantial graphs
encompass Tesniere’s concepts of ‘little dramas’ (Manjali, 1997 (a) and (b)) where the
verb organises or structures sentential meaning, binding objects and situations to form
dynamic gestalts. These gestalts are organic and binding principles of brain organisation.

Based on these ideas understanding language development centers on how topological

and dynamic information (morphodynamics) provided by perception can be iconically
encoded in image schemata and processed by the semantics of natural language
(Nuessel, 1996; Petitot, 1995, 2003). Schemata capture the structural contours of
sensorimotor experience integrating information from multiple modalities (Grady, 2005;
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 3/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

Hampe, 2005; Rohrer, 2005). Image schemata organise knowledge and reasoning about
the world. They function somewhat like the abstract structure of an image, and thereby
connect up a vast range of different experiences that manifest this same recurring
structure (Johnson, 1987). By repeatedly activating a set of properties in a particular way
individuals form top-down frames for organising different aspects of perception via
metaphor. Metaphor preserves the topological contours of perceptual experience
(Invariance principle) (Lakoff, 1993), where perception is structured by the Gestalt
principles: emergence, reification, invariance and multistability (Lehar, 2003).

Image schemata are condensed redescriptions of perceptual experience for the purpose
of mapping spatial structure on to conceptual structure. Therefore modeling language
development in terms of image schemata function must respect the view that has
emerged in cognitive linguistics that the continuous and dynamic form of the external,
phenomenal world motivates sentential semantic structures (Manjali, 1997 (a) and (b)).
The continuous plane of content has its source in perception, as it is through perception
that the human organism establishes contact with the world. The elements of the
perceptually rooted linguistic schemas produce a 'dynamic gestalt' by means of which
semantic comprehension of sentences can take place.

Modeling language development

Based on the above we propose that modeling language development can be based on
the idea that the continuous and dynamic form of the external, phenomenal world
motivates dynamic Gestalts. These sentential semantic structures are an expression of
the unity between perception and language. These structures are a product of the self-
organisation of image schemata in ontogeny, where gestalts acquire meaning via
metaphor.

Metaphor needs to be considered in terms of the many space conceptual integration model
that is based on double-scope blending (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, 2003, 2008).
Blending is dynamic where we construct meaning by actively reinterpreting the unknown
(percepts, ideas) in terms of the known or idealised concepts. It involves the complex
interaction between the contingencies of the source (unknown) considered in terms of the
preconceived ideals of the known (target). The dynamics give rise to emergent properties
representing reality from a certain perspective. Double-scope blending creates vast
conceptual networks with elaborate relations running across the network—relations of
time, space, cause-effect, representation, analogy and disanalogy, change, identity,
uniqueness, and so on. Despite the vast scales involved nonetheless concepts are
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 4/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

anchored in scenes that are at human scale. Integration networks consisting of conventional
parts, conventionally structured parts, and novel mappings and compressions represent
reality from a certain perspective.

Blending is recursive: packed, human-scale blends become inputs to new networks

(Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, 2003, 2008). Emergent structures can be incorporated into
more complex ones. Human scale blends contained in the network provide a platform, a
scaffold, a cognitively congenial basis from which to reach out, manage, manipulate,
transform, develop, and handle the network. Human thought anchoring vast network
scales in “human scale” enables us to bring the distant past and future together in the here-
and-now. The individual can become aware of identity and existence in subjective time
that extends from the past through the present to the future. Blending involves a major
personal and emotional input so that the semantic product is highly personal and
unpredictable. It also accommodates the central role of the ego as being both the agent
and also changed in the blending process. It countenances paradox and anomalies.

Despite the importance of self-organisation between gestalt and metaphor in language

development no model has concentrated on this fundamental approach. We contend that
such a model needs to incorporate a number of aspects or constraints on its form. These
are as follows: rhetorical, where language stems from a continual questioning of the nature
of perception and thought; microgenetic (Brown, 1988, 1998), where language is an
actualisation (Aktualgenese) of a cognition over "layers" in mind and brain that retrace
growth patterns in phyloontogeny. In this way of thinking, the momentary actualisation of
the organism, its becoming, is the fundamental note from which the melody of
development is composed; ontological, where the conceptual units underlying the
dynamics can interpret reality; ontogenic, in that the units should recognise the maturational
sequence that characterises ontogeny; structural, where the units self organise into a
structure that transforms dynamic gestalt structures into sentential semantic structures;
recursivity, where the same dynamic should be evident at all levels of the neuraxis, from
perception to frontal planning; gestaltic, the dynamics should reflect the gestalt basis of
language development; incorporate double scope blending concepts of emergence,
metaphor as anchoring, spatiotemporal scaling, compression, completion, paradox
resolution and ego formation; and finally self-organisation, which incorporates notions of
metastability, metalinguistic development, fractal time and contextual dissociation.

Metaphor as coordination of the master tropes

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 5/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

In order to incorporate all these constraints into our model we propose that we need
to consider metaphor in terms of its constituent structure, coordination of the master
tropes (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and irony). To trope means to change meaning.
Of what? Of words? Yes, but more specifically they are the source of changing what or
how we mean. Each trope represents the stages consciousness must pass on the way to
abstract thought (D'Angelo, 1987). Metaphor presents perceptual equivalence,
representing an intuitive grasp of the whole, a primordial functional unity of sensory,
affective, imagistic and linguistic elements. Metonymy differentiates into parts,
transductively leading over the mind from one thing to another. Synecdoche is an
inductive movement where a part is put for the whole, and vice versa. Irony is a self-
conscious process that interprets the whole process.

The coordinated function of the four tropes as a system is considered essential for our
conceptual adaptation. From the 17th Century when Vico (Danesi, 2003; Vico, 1944) first
recognised the master tropes until the early 1980’s the tropology was championed as a
primitive semiotic unit (Burke, 1969; D’Angelo, 1992; Kellner, 1981; Oswick et al, 2004).
Since then the tropology has been relatively neglected as interest has focused on metaphor
and conceptual blending theory (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, 2003, 2008; Lakoff, 1987;
Lakoff, (1993); Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Taylor, 1989).

We propose that a tropological approach offers fresh insights into language development.
We will now rationalize use of the tropology in terms of the constraints we iterated above.

Considering the rhetorical constraint, metaphor is a cybernetic, homeostatic process that

continually questions the nature of perceived events and simultaneously our attempt to
represent these events through language. Metaphor formation involves a top-down
approach organising perception, synthesising information into a suitably
conceptualisable form. The tropology constitutes the rhetorical basis for concept
formation.

Concerning the next three constraints, microgenetic, ontological and ontogenic we note
that the master tropes were originally considered to be merely figures of speech, but we
now realise that their function is more fundamental (Burke, 1969; D’Angelo, 1987 and
1992; Kellner, 1981; Oswick et al, 2004). The development of language stems from
images and tropes. The tropes represent the capacity of man for direct sensation and
imaginative perception (D'Angelo, 1987; Danesi, 2004). They underlie creative process
based on the use of analogical reasoning. They are considered the basis for much of our
understanding in everyday life (Culler, 1981). Tropes constitute a system by which the
mind comes to grasp the world conceptually in language. They reflect our fundamentally
relational understanding of reality, a reality framed within systems of analogy (Chandler,
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 6/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

2002). Analogy is a reflection of our sensitivity to ontological form, which is rooted in

the perception of patterned resonance in the world (Zwicky, 2003). Tropes shape
thought so enabling our minds to echo our world.

Tropes are ontological concepts essential for our interpretation of reality. They
symbolise relationships within phenomena, where each trope represents a specific
strategy for presenting the perceived experience (White, 1985). They are models of the
different directions thought might take to offer meaning to areas of experience not
cognitively secured. Functioning together the tropological approach reflects ontogeny.
The order of the master tropes is not ad hoc but reflects cognitive and semantic
development (Kellner, 1981; D’Angelo, 1992). The order is strictly and logically
entailed. The tropology represents a form of knowing, of grasping a concept. The
tropology accords, whether loosely or strictly, with many theoretical systems of
knowing or coming to be known, as in Vico, Kant, Hegel, Marx and Goethe (Kellner,
1981; also see Burke, 1969). The tropology also represents the stages of cognitive
development which encompass both the phylogeny and ontogeny of cognitive systems
(D’Angelo, 1992; Kellner, 1981; Werner, 1944; Piaget, 1969; Vygotsky, 1962).
Foucoult (1970) and Vico (1944) have shown that the logic of the tropology (poetic
logic) underlies the general stages of development of Western thought.

The next constraint is structural. We have previously raised the question underlying the
cognitive linguistic approach to language formation: how is the physical world transformed
into semantic notions? The answer was a structuralist approach, where structures are
dynamic, morphological and gestalt based. The major tropes provide a dynamic, structural
basis for concept formation.

The next section will develop the recursive form of the tropology that is also central to the
microgenic approach (Brown, 1988) where language formation consists of a cascade of
whole/part shifts over evolutionary growth planes in the brain leading from a core in upper
brainstem through limbic formations to the neocortical rim. Then in the following two
sections we indicate the gestalt form of the tropology that is the foundation of the model.
We show first how the tropology functions in a gestalt manner and then how perception
functions tropologically. We propose that the latter is based on self-organisation in
ontogeny where perception and the tropology become self similar (isomorphic). To
corroborate the isomorphism we demonstrate homologies between the Gestalt principles
and the master tropes. These findings reveal our recursive model of language development
as inherently tropological and gestaltic. In the next stage we discuss metalinguistic
development as the tropology self organises in ontogeny to function in fractal time. The
synchronic form of the tropology ‘collapses’ past present and future into one expression.
These findings reflect on the nature of double scope blending in terms outlined above.
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 7/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

The extension of the tropology through the forebrain

The recursive pattern of the tropology is expressed in different ways through various levels
of the forebrain. We will first briefly outline the extent in neurological terms (Brown, 1988)
and then develop the tropological core. In neurological terms language can be conceived as
levels in a "vertical" structure, not as centers in a two-dimensional network. These levels
constitute a stratified system of phyletic growth planes. Language maps onto this structure.
Language is the outcome of a multitiered system distributed over levels in the evolution of
brain and behavior. The structure as a whole develops out of medial and paraventricular
formations through several growth planes of limbic and paralimbic (transitional) cortex to a
stage of generalized ("association," "integration") cortex.

Perceptual semantic transformation originates from linking polymodal sensorimotor

circuits. At the most primitive level of language perceptual data is organised by the Gestalt
principles. These dynamics involve the coordination of the sensorimotor activity with the
right temporoparietal lobes. These early stages of language formulation integrate incoming
topological information as Gestaltic primitives, e.g. as preverbal and ‘prepositional’
structures. They define the morphemes, the most primitive semantic units. The right and
left temporoparietal regions combine to reinterpret the morphemes and formulate speech
production. Finally at the highest level of integration frontal lobe planning continually
modulates the lower levels.

In tropological terms language development stems from the slow maturation and eventually
full coordination of the tropes. The tropes mature in the fixed order: metaphor; metonymy;
synecdoche and finally, irony. The expression of the tropology differs from perception
through to frontal planning (also see Kellner, 1981 for the following). Metalinguistic
function ensues when ironic self-awareness develops leading to narrativity and the
development of fluent speech.

As the tropes gradually mature in function they unfold upon themselves. In their most
primitive form, perception is interpreted in terms of a simple double binary system of
categories, defining same - other (metaphor / metonymy) and part – whole (synecdoche).
This matrix forms bisociations that are the most thorough way of encompassing the
diversity among the things that make up reality (States, 1998).

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 8/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

With the development of ironic awareness the tropology becomes complete and functions
in a cyclical manner. Maturation beyond the categorical level leads to projection upon a
syntagmatic axis that represents self-explanation through speech. This is the second level
of tropological explication, leading the tropes conceptually through the stages of linguistic
cooperation above the morpheme. The lexical process of creating whole-whole
correspondences to the concepts and words that are thus joined is a metaphoric transfer.
The reductive categorisation of these words governed by grammatical rules of combination
creates cause-effect entailments, which is metonymic. Synecdochal organisation at this
level refers to the organic status of sentences, where the rules of syntax are the cohesive
force. Finally, irony provides meaning from above the level of the sentence.

The highest level of tropological expansion is the level of thought and language planning in
the frontal regions. The intentional state establishes an obligatory, recurrent and
unidirectional configuration on the percept / thought interpretation process. Intentionality
involves the selection of broad semantic units from the meaning potential, the equivalent of
the paradigmatic or metaphoric axis of language. These selections invoke specific
structural relationships depending on the contextual demands needed for expression. The
necessary entailments broadly select for the specificities of syntactic structure that will be
realised in syntagms. These expressions underlie metonymy at this level. Synecdoche
concerns the formulation of symbolic relationships needed to match the coevolving
paradigmatic / syntagmatic aspect of expression. Symbols are selected relative to idealised
relations and contexts in ‘worlds’ of the same type, or possibly any imaginable type.

Finally, the ironic stance overviews the planning processes. Irony represents a self-
conscious process of interpretation of the process so that it foregrounds the inadequacy of
words to things, of appearance to essence. Irony signals dissatisfaction with
representation as such and motivates recourse to the tropological lexicon from which a
new and more responsive formulation may be sought. Full tropological process leads to
restructuring, an explication of the implicate order, momentary adaptation via a Darwinian
based exploration of the fabric of embodiment.

Tropology function in gestalt terms

The gestalt function of the tropology is as follows. Metaphor is an emergent process

where the individual creates a new perspective or meaning. To do that intentional needs
highlight specific relationships within the emerging whole, the metaphoric representation of

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 9/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

the real world or perceptual scene. Metonymy determines the contingent aspects of that
specific intentional state. The representation of figural relationships emerges from the
whole in context. Metonymy differentiates or reduces the overall situation in a figure
ground manner (see Koch, 1999; Talmy, 1988), where contiguity is the salient relation that
exists between the sub frame elements of a conceptual frame or between the frame as a
whole and its elements. That is, the salient links between elements of a given frame – as
constituting a prototypical conceptual gestalt – are contiguity relations. From a Gestalt
perspective perceptual saliency of stimuli critically depends on the surrounding context.
Metonymy preserves the perceived relationships in contextual form as a contingent
structure.

Simultaneously, synecdoche compares and contrasts the developing contingencies with

previously determined idealised structural relationships, representations of a general kind.
For example, see Doursat & Petitot, 2005 (a) and (b) model and discussion of the
development of simple spatial concepts such as ‘in’. In other words intelligence
constructs a world first by turning outwards to objectise itself through metonymy only to
turn inside, to come to know self in the image via synecdoche. Here the part-whole
relationship is inverted; the part is broadly reinterpreted in terms of what remains invariant
despite the contingencies of the real world. Synecdoche evolves to represent a higher level
of interpretation, of the actual within the many possible worlds available to the imagination.
Synecdoche recontextualises the specific within the personal.

The tropology reconciles or blends the contrasting ‘worlds’ so that the contingency of
metonymy forms a best fit with the ideal or invariant one developed through synecdoche.
With synecdoche the specificities of the moment may be placed in a broader context.
Irony feeds back on both the actual and the ideal demands for expression. Irony
questions the reality value of metonymy and of representation in general i.e. using words to
express the essence of things. The metastable system continually cycles through the tropes
as it adapts to the moment. With each turn of the cycle the emergent metaphoric level of
resolution leads to a novel perspective. Metaphor represents the ‘now’ as an attempt to
resolve the dynamics concerning: present contingencies (metonymy); past idealised
contentions (synecdoche); and the future via irony.

The tropological function of perception

We have proposed that our language development model is based on the progressive self-
organisation of the percept / metaphor interaction in ontogeny. Image schemata form top-
down frames for organising perception via tropological function. We conclude that in
ontogeny when the language system self-organises to criticality the function of both the
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 10/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

tropology and perception becomes self similar, 1/f or isomorphic (Anderson & Mandell,
(1996); Kello &.Van Orden (2009). We postulate that with self-organisation the perceptual
system functions in a tropological manner where the components of the tropology and
perception are homologous.

We now propose and substantiate these homologies between each major trope and Gestalt
principal: emergence, reification, invariance and multistability (Lehar, 2003). Metaphor is
the analog of emergence. The unifying function of metaphoric resemblance accounts for
the emergence of new meaning in language. It involves an act of perceptual and semantic
restructuring where a sense of imagination operates to draw meaning from the comparison
made (Ricoeur, 1975; 1991). The process includes an iconic moment or image that acts as
a gathering of emergent meanings that underlies our ability to see reality other than that
received. This is rooted in the imagination to construct an image from many diverse
semantic fields.

In Gestalt theory, emergence refers to the formation of the macro structure, the Gestalt or
meaningful form. The whole is greater than the parts. Emergence is unpredictable as the
total structure remains beyond the sum of the instances. The dynamic aspect of emergence
is reflected in the fact that the final global state is not computed in a single pass, but
continuously, like a relaxation to equilibrium in a dynamic system model.

Secondly, metonymy is analogous to reification. As indicated above metonymy is a

figure–ground effect (see Koch, 1999; Talmy, 1988) where from a Gestalt perspective
perceptual saliency of stimuli critically depends on the surrounding context. Metonymy
conveys some incorporeal or intangible state in terms of the corporeal or tangible. It
conserves perception of the worlds of objects, reflects their quiddity, their particular
precisions (Hejinian, 1996). Metonymy underlies the gappy nature of thought, where
‘looking’ through the gaps between the disparate contiguous parts imagines meaning. The
gaps (relationships) ‘point’ to a missing whole, a structure that unites the parts.

Reification refers to the perceptual state where specific virtual structures or singularities
emerge in context. The gestalt is created through a constructive or generative process so
that the part reified is defined by its contingent context. With reification more explicit
information develops than is immediately obvious or present in the specific scene. As with
metonymy meaning arises by ‘looking’ through the gaps between the disparate contiguous
parts.

Synecdoche is equivalent to invariance. Synecdoche creates an explicit hierarchy by

situating one thing as part of another. It is holistic and imagistic, presupposing some
constitutive quality that can unify its relation to the world and symbolise this unity.
Synecdoche underlies the categorical tendency that is the psychological (but not strictly
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 11/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

formal) sense of invariance.

Invariance is of great importance in Gestalt perception (Hochberg & McAllister, 1953;

Hoffman, 1992). The preferred interpretation of a stimulus is the one with the simplest
code. That is a code that enables a reconstruction of the stimulus using a minimum number
of descriptive parameters. Such a code is obtained by capturing a maximum amount of
regularity and yields a hierarchical organization of the stimulus in terms of wholes and
parts. Simplicity is often based on symmetry criteria. The gestalt is of great importance for
the semantic development of the concept. The gestalt, is what remains invariant across all
percepts, the preservation of similar structural relationships that have developed
dynamically.

Irony is analogous to multistability. Irony foregrounds the inadequacy of words to things,

of appearance to essence. Irony underlines the discontinuity between what is said and
what is meant, what is planned and what occurs. It takes the dialectic between external
reality and language to a new level that is essential for resolution of the paradox.

Multistability indicates the tendency of ambiguous experiences to oscillate unstably

between alternative interpretations. Interpretation of scenes can vary form moment to
moment merely depending on what constitutes figure and context. Multistability underlies
symmetry breaking and phase transformation in self-organisation. For example, with
embedded figures metastability and phase transitions arise in the self-organising decisional
process (Kelso and Tognoli, 2007). In general, symmetry breaking in cognition requires a
creative answer to overcome the paradox.

Language development based on dynamics within the tropology

We have sought to establish the recursive nature of the tropology underlying language
development through all levels of the forebrain. To do that we first showed that the
tropology functions in a gestalt manner. Then we proposed that when the tropology and
perception self-organise perception is governed by a tropological sequence: emergence,
reification, invariance and multistability.

Based on these findings we will now look at the model from two perspectives. In general
terms we see language development as a progressive increase in the ability to extract,
consolidate and manipulate gestalts within the extended forebrain system. Gestalts are the
invariant structures determined by realising the universality aspects of each specific
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 12/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

percept; that is, despite the differences between the infinite number of scenes the child
meets (see Doursat & Petitot, 2005(a); Breidbach, & Jost, 2006). The dialectical tension
between the specific and universal governs the development. Gestalts are formed through
reification and then given initial significance through invariance, where they are correlated
with preconceived transformations of a similar type. In ontogeny gestalts become more
and more integrated as they are consolidated within the micro (perceptual level) and macro
(extending to the forebrain) systems. The tropology stabilises and reinterprets the Gestalt
through the interaction between metonymy and synecdoche. The process becomes one of
progressive embedding through transformations. Objects and situations embed in ‘verbs’
or morphogenic transformations. These are in turn further embedded through metonymy
and synecdochal blending. From recursive tropological extension the gestalts become
sentential semantic structures. They gain an increasing sense of meaning and permanence
as they become consolidated (embedded) in the process. We see the primary function of
the language system is to consolidate meaning potential through gestalt metaphor self
organisation. The development and further use or the semantic sentential structures
enables in to adapt from moment to moment. Within each moment as it updates it
restructures self to best represent what we mean. This becomes and is the essence of
Pragnanz, our meaning as self-realisation.

In more specific terms language development is based on the gradual development of the
ability to recognise objects and realise their meaning through contextual relationships. In
the earliest development of perception the child differentiates aspects of the whole,
experiencing objects apart from self. The semantic task is to stabilise perception. That is
performed by transforming percepts into gestalts of increasing stability by increasing the
state space of synecdochal or invariant forms. Stability is also conferred by more widely
distributing the gestalt, making it a function of widespread coordinated forebrain activity.

Language development is characterised by an increasing ability to manipulate gestalts by

recontextualising them through tropal interaction. The gestalt is defined and structured by
its context. Tropal dynamics modify gestalts so that the figure-ground relationship in
perception becomes reinterpreted through the interaction or blending between metonymy
and synecdoche and irony. In this blending manner the primitive perceptual syntagms
become sentential semantic structures, the basic units of language.

Metalinguistic development through self-organisation of the

language system

The development of the language system is based on increasing coordination of patterns

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 13/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

through all levels of the forebrain. The embodied, situated nature of cognition is founded
on the ability of these patterns spanning multiple time scales to organize in space and time
(Kello & Van Orden, 2009; Kelso & Tognoli, 2007). Systems self organise to metastability
(Bressler & Kelso, 2001; Kelso, 2002) which produces a range of brain behaviours where
numerous patterns of activity co-exist as latent potentials (Kello et al., 2008). Systems
become more flexible and metastable as their capacity to concurrently hold many distinct
latent patterns increases.

Fractal dynamics or 1/f scaling behaviour is pervasive throughout the nervous system.
Fractal time means that the extended tropological processes become coordinated vertically
(Anderson & Mandell, 1996). In systems at criticality behaviour becomes correlated
across levels. In our model we propose that the three different temporal processes within
the tropology become synchronous: irony relates to future time of planning; metonymy to
the contingency of the present; synecdoche reflects the past, invariance gained through
experience. Metaphor is emergent leading to the formation of new structural relations as
each cycle of the tropology tries to resolve the particular intention. Thought and language
stem from recurrent metaphoric anchoring of vast network scales in the “human scale”.
This process brings the past and future together in the here-and-now (Fauconnier &
Turner, 2008). The synchronic coordination of the tropology is the basis for language.
Language is a diachronic transformation and via self-reference feeds back to the planning
and perceptual centers.

As mentioned semantic growth is characterised by the increasing ‘ability’ to

recontextualise. In the early stages of development the child is governed by ambience so
figure-ground (context or structure) are inseparable. The child cannot dissociate the figure
from its context and language remains literal (mimetic, gestural). However, through self-
organisation and developing ironic awareness the tropology turns back on itself. Self-
awareness leads to major changes in the dynamics of the gestalt / tropology relationship.
The development of self-reference means that reference to self means self and other, or
subject and object. Self now becomes the structure within which the gestaltic object
coevolves through self-reference. However, the self / object relation where self is context
and object is figure are of different logical types. Now the object is dissociated from the
self; figure can also be separated from its ground. This leads to the increasing autonomy of
language and the development of metalanguage.

The ability to dissociate figure from ground, or context, is essential for conceptual fluidity,
metaphor and language development. The individual realises that figure and ground can
be interchanged, or even changed completely. Recontextualisation occurs at will. The
ability to realise figures in different contexts underlies the growth of imagination and
meaning. All meaning refers back to self-interpretation so that eventually we can say and
even become anything we wish.
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 14/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

Further semantic aspects of the model

We have proposed that self-organisation between gestalts and the tropology can serve as a
basis to model semantic development. We conclude by further justifying the importance
of a tropological approach. The first is what Piaget called significant
implication (Scholnook & Cookson, 1994). Meaning is the understanding of how an
action changes (transforms) the world. Significant implication constructs the action-result
regularities that image schemata represent. In order to understand the logic of action, the
child must first build contingencies based on the inference that certain actions rather than
others produce specific results. The tropology is an analog of Piaget’s schemata depicting
the general stages of cognitive development (D’Angelo, 1992). The tropology provides a
basis for the logic inherent in action perception schemata. This same logic can now be
seen to pervade the coordinated activity necessary for language development.

Second, we have seen that narrativity develops as the tropology matures to form recursive
cyclical activity. Narrativity is of great psychological importance because it organises the
structure of human experience. Narrativity typifies the child after 3 or 4 where they begin
to remember their autobiographical experience (Young & Saver, 2001). Narrativity
constructs our notion of reality and asserts that the experience of life takes on meaning
through allegorical inflation.

Thirdly, tropological process leads to development of the sense of continuity of self. This
process is characterised by transitions between stable and unstable phase synchronisation
as seen in metastability. The tropes of transition and closure underlie the instability (see
Grossman, 1998). Metaphor and synecdoche are the brakes of the tropological machine;
metonymy and irony are its engines. Metaphor and synecdoche represent the identity of
versions of self differing over time. Metaphor affirms the identity between things and their
inner meaning. Synecdoche represents the sublation of difference in the perceived
homogeneity of subject and object. Metonymy and irony on the other hand represent
transitions in the search for identity. Metonymy denies identity. However, with irony there
is a simultaneous negation and preservation of identity that advances the dialectic to a new
phase. The tropology oscillates between cycles of tension and resolution, where the
confrontation of the tropes informs the progress of internal narrative innovation that
underlies identity as continuity within change.

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 15/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

Finally, in addition to our comments on irony we further highlight the important role of
irony in modeling language development (Colbrook, 2003; White, 1985). Irony is essential
for developing meaning; how knowledge or gnosis arises from language. Gnosis is not an
algorithmic process but rather a pragmatic need to understand the world. This process is
better understood as ‘diagnosis’, literally ‘knowing through’, a knowledge gained through
ironic self-awareness, the self-reflective process of the tropology (Kellner, 1981). Here
knowledge comes from non-understanding. That is, not by man extending his mind and
taking the world in. Rather he makes things out of himself and becomes them by
transforming himself into them.

Discussion

We have developed a dynamic model of language development based on a unifying

concept: tropes shape thought so enabling our minds to mould our world. In the language
model the forebrain functions as a complex adaptive system subserved by the metastable
tropology dynamically reconstructing self from moment to moment. This is a gestalt
notion, where the tropes coordinate to generate semantic sentential structures that can
serve as the primary currency of semantic exchange at all levels of the neuraxis. These
enable us to conceive inputs or ideas in contextual terms and then recontextualise them so
that we can ‘become’ them. In becoming we are restructured through self-explication and
ultimately self-explanation.

The thesis provides a systematic link between gestalt and metaphor. We have asserted
many reasons for the continuing relevance of the tropology in language development. In
particular the model reflects the way in which four-dimensional space-time becomes
internalised as fractal space-time. That transformation is the key to semantics. We see the
tropology as central to that conversion because it functions in a gestalt manner and
perception is tropological. We contend that these groundbreaking ideas are pivotal to
understanding the unity of forebrain function.

The model has several other important aspects. It introduces a novel basis for studying
language development in terms of seven self-organising parameters. Four of these relate to
transformations in ontogeny between the gestalt principles and the tropes: reification and
metonymy; invariance and synecdoche; multistability and irony; and emergence of
perception and metaphor. The fifth axis concerns the relationship between local
multistability and the global coordinative concept, metastability. The sixth axis is the
development of metalinguistic capability through to self-organisation. Finally, we provide a
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 16/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

fresh way to understand Pragnanz as the semantic goal of the tropological gestalt system.
In ontogeny we come to perceive objects as a function of the extended tropology. As we
perceive with intention we project downwards (from our ‘past’) so that objects are
discovered anew. That fresh outlook stems from each language act where we reinvent
objects through the emergent process based on the recursive process of blending, irony
and metaphor. The object becomes meaningful as we relate to it by extending fractal time
into reflexic fractal space-time. Gestalt production restructures self through Pragnanz.

The model enables us to consider the importance of time constraints in language

development. Communication is governed by conflicting constraints. It must maximise
meaning in minimal time. Gestalts, iconic or imagistic forms have rich relational semantics
but they are ambiguous (Wilden, 1980). On the other hand, although discursive language
has a powerful syntax that makes it unambiguous, it takes time. The model proposes that
the optimal resolution of the conflict between these two forms of communication lead to
development of a gestalt system that generates semantic structures with a sentential form.
These semantic sentential structures are produced from and represent brain function at
points of instability, at criticality and metastability, where brain adaptation is optimised.
We propose that his type of max / min optimizing process leads to Zipf’s law where there
is a 1/f relationship between word length and usage. It also helps to understand the
importance of implication in metonymy and gestalt formation through synecdoche and
metaphor.

Furthermore, the brain functions at metastability in order to compress its infinite options to
completion (in a semantic sense) in the least time. This mechanism requires a strong
constraining force, limiting language and maximising semantics. We propose that irony
evolved to subserve that function. Irony resolves the conflict between the actual and the
ideal frames. It also enables us to adopt a metalinguistic stance. Irony questioning both
actualisation (metonymy) and representation (synecdoche). Irony may acts as an optimiser
in the max / min dynamic mentioned above.

The model also provides fresh insights into microgenesis (Brown, 1988, 1998). We will
detail the close relationship between the two models more comprehensively in a later
paper. At this stage we note that microgenesis is couched in terms of neurological process
and process metaphysics. It is concerned with the concept of time, change and the
actualisation (becoming) over phases in the brain in the momentary development of a
cognition. Becoming creates the novelty as well as the duration through which the entity
momentarily exists. Each novel moment is a constituent of an imaginative series over which
the entity endures. Our model is strongly based on the creation of time (time collapse,
fractal time) and imagination. These issues will serve as a major link between the two
theories.
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 17/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

References

Anderson, C.M.. & Mandell, A. J. (1996). Fractals of brain, fractals of mind: in search of a
symmetry bond in E.R. Mac Cormac, M. Stamenov,.Advances in consciousness research.
Editors: J. Benjamins Publishing. Amsterdam. 75- 127.

Breidbach, O. & Jost, J. (2006) On the gestalt concept. Theory in Biosciences. 125, 19-36.

Bressler, S.L. & Kelso, J.A.S. (2001). Cortical coordination dynamics and cognition,
Trends in Cognitive Science, 5, 26-36.

Brown, J. W. (1988). The life of the mind. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. London.

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 18/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

Brown, J. W. (1998). Foundations of cognitive metaphysics. Process Studies, Center for

Process Studies 21:1-2, 79-92.

Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California.

Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics: The basics. London: Routledge.

Colebrook, C. (2003) Irony in the work of philosophy. University of Nebraska Press.

Culler, J. (1981). The pursuit of signs: Semiotics, literature, deconstruction. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Danesi, M. (1993). Vico, metaphor and the origin of language. Indiana University Press.

Danesi, M. (2004). Poetic logic. The role of metaphor in thought, language and culture.
Madison: Atwood Publishing.

D'Angelo, F.J. (1987). Prolegomena to a rhetoric of tropes. Rhetoric Review, 6, 32-40.

D'Angelo, F.J. (1992). The four master tropes: Analogues of development. Rhetoric
Review, 11, 91-107.

Doursat, R. & Petitot, J. (2005a) Bridging the gap between vision and language: A
morphodynamical model of spatial categories. Proceedings of the International Joint
Conference on Neural Networks.

Doursat, R. & Petitot, J. (2005b) Dynamical systems and cognitive linguistics: Toward an
active morphodynamical semantics. Neural Networks. 18: 628-638.

Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. (1998). "Conceptual Integration Networks." Cognitive

Science, 22(2): 133-187.

Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. (2003). The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.

Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. (2008) Rethinking Metaphor. In Ray Gibbs, ed. Cambridge
Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 53-66.
http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 19/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things. London: Tavistock.

Grady, J.E. (2005). Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In: B. Hampe, J.
Grady (Ed.) From perception to meaning. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.

Grossman, M. (1998) The story of all things: Writing the self in English renaissance
narrative poetry. Duke University Press.

Hampe, B. (2005). Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. In B. Hampe & J. Grady

(Eds.), From perception to meaning. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. 1-15.

Hejinian, L. (1996). The rejection of closure. Onward. Contemporary poetry and poetics,
New York: Peter Lang.

Hochberg, J.E., & McAlister, E. (1953). A quantitative approach to figural goodness,

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 361-364.

Hoffman, W.C. (1992). Symmetry and geometric psychology. Symmetry: Culture &
Science, 3, 305-310.

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and
reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kellner, H. (1981). The inflatable trope as narrative theory: Structure or allegory? Diacritics,
11, 14-28.

Kello, C.T. &.Van Orden, G.C., (2009). Soft assembly of sensorimotor function.
Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 13, 57-78.

Kelso, J.A.S. & Tognoli, E. (2007) Towards a complementary neuroscience: Metastable

coordination dynamics of the brain. In: Ed. L. I. Perlovsky, I.; R. Kozma, Neurodynamics
of cognition and consciousness. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 39-61.

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 20/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

Kelso, J.A.S. (2002). The complementary nature of coordination dynamics: Self-

organization and agency. Nonlinear Phenomena in Complex Systems, 5, 364-371.

Koch P. (1999) Frame and contiguity: on the cognitive basis of metonymy and certain
types of word formation. In K.-U. Panther and G., Radden (Eds.) Metonymy in language
and thought. (pp 139-169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lakoff, G. (1993) “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. Metaphor and Thought. Ed.
A. Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 202-251.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lehar, S. (1980). The world in your head: A gestalt view of the mechanism of conscious
experience. Mahwah, New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Manjali, F. (1997): (a) Catastrophe Theoretic Semantics: Towards a Physics of Meaning.

Dynamical Models in Semiotics/Semantics. Semiotics Institute Online.
:(b) Metaphors in Grammar. Dynamical Models in
Semiotics/Semantics. Semiotics Institute Online.

Nuessel, F. (1996). Introducing semiotics. Semiotica. Volume 110, Issue 1-2, 145–196

Oswick, C., Putnam, L., & Keenoy, T. (2004). Tropes, discourse and organising. In:
D.Grant, C.Oswick, L.Putnam.The Sage handbook of organizational discourse. Sage
Publications. 105-129.

Petitot, J. (1995). Morphodynamics and attractor syntax. In T. van Gelder & R. Port
(Eds.), Mind as Motion. MIT Press.

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 21/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

Petitot, J. (2003). Morphogenesis of Meaning. Peter Lang.

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York. Basis.

Ricoeur, P. (1975). The rule of metaphor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ricoeur, P. (1991). Metaphor and the main problem of hermeneutics. A Ricoeur Reader:
Reflection and Imagination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Rohrer, T. (2005). Image schemata in the brain. In B. Hampe and J. Grady (Eds.), From
perception to meaning. (pp 165-199). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.

Scholnick, E.K. & Cookson, K. (1994) A developmental analysis of cognitive semantics:

What is the role of metaphor in the construction of knowledge and reasoning? In W. F.
Overton, D. S. Palermo (Ed.) The nature and ontogenesis of meaning: image schemas in
cognitive linguistic. New Jersey, U.K.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pp 109-128.

Sköldberg, K. (2002). The poetic logic of administration: Styles and changes of style in the
art of organizing. Routledge. London. Spangenberg.

States, B.O. (1998) Of paradoxes and tautologies. American Scholar, 67, 51-66.

Talmy, L. (1988). The relation of grammar to cognition. In Rudzka- Ostyn, (ed.) Topics
in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 165-205.

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Taylor, J.R. (1989). Linguistic categorisation: prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford:

Claredon Express.

Thom, R. (1972). Structural stability and morphogenesis. New York: Benjamin, Paris:
Ediscience.

Thom, R. (1990). Eng. trans. by V. Meyer, as Semio Physics: A Sketch. Aristotelian

Physics and Catastrophe Theory, Addison-Wesley.

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 22/23
31/3/2014 A Model of Language Development

Vico, G. (1944). The new science of Giambattista Vico. Trans. T. Bergin, M. Fisch.
Ithaca. Cornell UP.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Ed. E.Hanfmann, G.Vakar. Cambridge MA:
MIT P.

Werner, H. (1948). Comparative psychology of mental development. Ed. P.Follett,

Chicago.

White, H. (1985). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Young, K. & Saver, J.L. (2001) The neurology of narrative. SubStance, 30, 72-84.

Zwicky, J. (2003) Wisdom and metaphor. Gaspereau Press.

http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/a_model_of_language_development.htm 23/23